It was Greg Smith who wrote what Dehlin referred to right? If that's the case then on Ralph Hancocks' blog Schryver posted a comment saying both he and his wife read it.

Quote:

William Schryver:June 26, 2012 at 9:12 pm

Both my wife and I have read Greg Smith’s timely article. It is a well-written and exhaustively foot-noted treatise that shines a revealing light upon Dehlin and the numerous “contradictions” to which Ralph alludes above. Whether in the Mormon Studies Review at this time or in another venue at a later date, Smith’s article constitutes a much needed analysis of the growing “ministry” of the most successful example, to date, of a species of Latter-day Saint I have lovingly dubbed the “Evangelizing Apostates of Mormonism.”

Whether this article ought to have been, or not, published at this particular point in time is a valid question, many of the implications of which are entirely unrelated to the future direction of the Maxwell Institute. Therefore I concur with Ralph’s caveat concerning the causal relationships between Dehlin, the apparent suppression of Smiths’ paper, and the recent radical excision from the Maxwell Institute of the last remnant of F.A.R.M.S.

That said, it has been quite apparent to me, as I have observed matters over the course of the past several days since this story broke on a notoriously hostile ex-Mormon-dominated message board, that the Evangelizing Apostates of Mormonism have already established their own narrative that has defined the chain of causality in this affair. From their perspective, LDS Church leadership has hopped on John Dehlin’s bandwagon, moved to formally promote a secularist-dominated Mormon Studies program at Brigham Young University, and, to punctuate the abrupt change of direction, ruthlessly (and ever so publicly) repudiated Dan Peterson and F.A.R.M.S. and everything they stood for.

It was Greg Smith who wrote what Dehlin referred to right? If that's the case then on Ralph Hancocks' blog Schryver posted a comment saying both he and his wife read it.

Quote:

William Schryver:June 26, 2012 at 9:12 pm

That said, it has been quite apparent to me, as I have observed matters over the course of the past several days since this story broke on a notoriously hostile ex-Mormon-dominated message board, that the Evangelizing Apostates of Mormonism have already established their own narrative that has defined the chain of causality in this affair. From their perspective, LDS Church leadership has hopped on John Dehlin’s bandwagon, moved to formally promote a secularist-dominated Mormon Studies program at Brigham Young University, and, to punctuate the abrupt change of direction, ruthlessly (and ever so publicly) repudiated Dan Peterson and F.A.R.M.S. and everything they stood for.

_________________"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby

Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson

One thing I find troubling (among many) about Schryver's screed there is the repetition of the apologetic lie that critics are the ones making the causal link between the spiking of the Dehlin hit piece last month and the sacking of DCP and Co. this month. That link was made by DCP himself in his email response to Bradford.

Daniel C. Peterson to Gerald Bradford wrote:

The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works.

Is there no historical event to which the apologists will not try to give the revisionist treatment? It's only been ten days since this story broke, ferchrissakes. How stupid do they think we are?

_________________"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain"The lds church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo

One thing I find troubling (among many) about Schryver's screed there is the repetition of the apologetic lie that critics are the ones making the causal link between the spiking of the Dehlin hit piece last month and the sacking of DCP and Co. this month. That link was made by DCP himself in his email response to Bradford.

Daniel C. Peterson to Gerald Bradford wrote:

The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works.

Is there no historical event to which the apologists will not try to give the revisionist treatment? It's only been ten days since this story broke, ferchrissakes. How stupid do they think we are?

Q: How can you tell when they are lying?

A: When their lips are moving.

_________________Zadok:I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.Maksutov:That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

It's kind of embarrassing how many of the apologists seem to think it's appropriate for an academic journal, sponsored by a major university, to publish a 100+ page, "footnoted" exposé of the religious views of the host of an Internet podcast. The tone of the article could be all hugs and kisses, and it would still be cringe-worthy.

It's kind of embarrassing how many of the apologists seem to think it's appropriate for an academic journal, sponsored by a major university, to publish a 100+ page, "footnoted" exposé of the religious views of the host of an Internet podcast. The tone of the article could be all hugs and kisses, and it would still be cringe-worthy.

Yes. Really.

I am trying to imagine this happening anywhere outside the LDS world, and I just can't.

Let's just look at it again:

Quote:

It's kind of embarrassing how many of the apologists seem to think it's appropriate for an academic journal, sponsored by a major university, to publish a 100+ page, "footnoted" exposé of the religious views of the host of an Internet podcast.

No, it is the bolded bits that do it. No wonder BYU wanted this to stop.

_________________Zadok:I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.Maksutov:That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

(I've made it easy for you by putting the answers in order of probability...)

_________________“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

Will just doesn't get it. I don't give a hoot what John Dehlin's standing is with regards to the church. What is more important to me is that he has shown kindness and understanding to those who have or are struggling with the history, truth claims and culture of some aspects of the church. Basically he has acted in what seems to me to be a 'christian manner' regardless of his own beliefs or standing in the church.

Mormon Stories is FAR BIGGER than John Dehlin. It's taken on a life of its own. I enjoy the facebook page for Mormon Stories because it provides a safe place for Mormons of all colour to express their opinion whether it be of faith, doubt or disbelief. I always look forward to Ben Park's contributions over there. Again, John Dehlin isn't a big part of it (for me anyway). This isn't about the cult of personality.

Mormon Stories helps me to be a part of the Mormon Community even though I no longer believe. There is still much in LDS culture and belief that I like. MS helps me to embrace that.

_________________"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov

What I want to see is a 'hit piece' on Joseph Smith. Now that, for me is far more important than a 'hit piece' on John Dehlin. John isn't trying to start up a church for goodness sake. Joseph Smith was. Joseph Smith claimed to talk for God. Far more important to analyse and research Joseph Smith's character than John Dehlin's...

_________________"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov

It's kind of embarrassing how many of the apologists seem to think it's appropriate for an academic journal, sponsored by a major university, to publish a 100+ page, "footnoted" exposé of the religious views of the host of an Internet podcast. The tone of the article could be all hugs and kisses, and it would still be cringe-worthy.

Amen, Chris. This is exactly right. It is totally embarrassing. It is also embarrassing to have a political science professor at BYU who, in his role as president of a foundation for promoting religious discussion about public affairs, named after John Adams, uses that forum to weigh in on the non-relationship between John Dehlin and the future of the Maxwell Institute (wow, there's new for you). For a guy as smart as he is, he just turned his foundation into amateur hour.

_________________"He who sees only with the eyes of reason has no occasion for spectacles."~Vizir Rustan, The Magic Spectacles

I'm still waiting for Stephen Hawking's searing invective against Bill Nye The Science Guy to appear in Nature.

H.

_________________"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir

I wonder why Schryver bothers to mention that his wife read the piece if no one is to read her independent impressions of it. Are her views exactly the same as his? Or is he exercising his role as patriarch in speaking for both of them? Perhaps they established a consensus on the piece before he wrote this deliberate misrepresentation of "apostate" views of the Dehlin situation.

_________________"He who sees only with the eyes of reason has no occasion for spectacles."~Vizir Rustan, The Magic Spectacles

I wonder why Schryver bothers to mention that his wife read the piece if no one is to read her independent impressions of it. Are her views exactly the same as his? Or is he exercising his role as patriarch in speaking for both of them? Perhaps they established a consensus on the piece before he wrote this deliberate misrepresentation of "apostate" views of the Dehlin situation.

Well I am positive that she is the better half of that union and is far more honest and trustworthy than Willy which makes it understandable that he would turn to her.

_________________aka Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position.""That's what he gets for posting in his own name."2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015

One thing I find troubling (among many) about Schryver's screed there is the repetition of the apologetic lie that critics are the ones making the causal link between the spiking of the Dehlin hit piece last month and the sacking of DCP and Co. this month. That link was made by DCP himself in his email response to Bradford.

Daniel C. Peterson to Gerald Bradford wrote:

The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works.

Is there no historical event to which the apologists will not try to give the revisionist treatment? It's only been ten days since this story broke, ferchrissakes. How stupid do they think we are?